It's okay to hate fags, but don't you dare say anything about the make-believe magic-man behind my faith that I use to enable my hatred!

It may be OK for Muslims to hate gays, but anyone who calls himself Christian who "hates fags" is fooling himself and needs to read the New Testamment. It has a few choice passages such as "love your enemies" and "judge not." It also has a few choice words about hypocrites that some "Christians" should read.

... but anyone who calls himself Christian who "hates fags" is fooling himself and needs to read the New Testament...

Perhaps they could start by reading Romans 1:27.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Why just the new testament BTW? Leviticus says gays should be killed.

I'm neither gay nor christian, but I'd have a hard time reconciling them if I was.

"judge not" has a great deal of context around it and does not mean "judge not" at all. It means you will be held to whatever standards you hold others. Its really more about our tenancy to rationalize our own ill behavior and to remind us to be "open minded" about the acts of others as they may very well have a reason for what they do. Don't demand the head of a man for stealing a loaf of bread, he might be desperately poor with starving child at home. Someday you might be in the same situation and you would want a little forgiveness and understanding.

If there is something you believe is so wrong that you yourself would never ever do it no matter what, hope to die (and its otherwise consistent with the new testament), than its completely okay as a Christian for you to judge another for it, even harshly.

Nope, you can tolerate something and still actively speak against it. Attempting to convince people they are wrong about something is harmless. It breaks into intolerance when you suggest or take action(be it legislative, violent, or manipulative) against a group.

In the west, politics has taken over from religion in arrogating onto itself the power to force its views on everyone. This is reflected in things like the First Amendment.

This process needs to happen over there. Do not allow it to grab more power.

Next step: stripping it from politics. This was done once but it clawed its way back in. Politics and religion generate the same angers not because they are similar, but because they are the exact same phenomenon

Sorry. But no. They are not the same phenomenon. Faith is a requirement for religion, because religions are always false. Faith is not absolutely necessary for politics, because people are genuinely capable of being both capable and and have good intentions, however rare that may be.

The parent said "religions are always false". There was no need for me to hash through the possible definitions that may lend it credence, it was only necessary for me to provide a single definition which proved it inaccurate. That is why I chose that definition.

Ah, yes. Argument by dictionary. That's an excellent strategy: it allows you to avoid the substance of an argument by focusing instead on specific word-use.

Let's try this instead: no religion has been shown to be true. In fact, no religion has demonstrated a basis by which its truth-claims can be evaluated. Religion has no epistemic footing.

You indicate this yourself when you mentioned, "There are over 4,200 religions in the world." (This ignores the various nuanced schisms that exist in many of those 4,200 religions, but we'll let that slide for the moment.) This number indicates there is no real epistemic foundation on which to build a reliable religion. Basically, it's all just gut-feeling, social mechanisms for control, pareidolia, and a desire to know things that are effectively unknowable (or, without answer because the question is bad, such as, "Why are we here?")

So, yes, I think I can say that all religions are wrong, even if they are right in some details. It'd be like the claim, "The earth is warming." That is a correct statement of fact. However, one can be wrong in stating it: "The earth is warming because Hell is getting closer," would simply be wrong.

Religious statements are effectively without basis. Every religious statement that is not grounded in observation and logic (basically, science) can be summed up thusly: "I believe this thing, but I have no basis to assume this thing is true." Asserting a thing as true without a solid basis in observable reality is worse than being wrong. At best it is misleading. At worst, it papers over ignorance, effectively vetoing reason and inquiry.

Your dumb ideas are yours to have, but I've no obligation to hold them up to any sort of esteem any more than I'm obligated to respect the idea that the earth sits on a stack of turtles in space or that Santa squeezes down six billion chimneys every year. The sooner we stop giving ideas a retreat by couching them in "my belief system", the sooner we can get on with common sense.

You can legislate education, however. And as people become more educated, they become less religious. Win-win!

More to the point, you want respect? Start by learning why we think you sound like a complete idiot when you go frothing about your preferred fairy-tale. You want tolerance? Behave like civilized humans rather than rabid dogs. You want the freedom to practice your religion? Clean house and stop letting the worst among you represent your religion to the rest of the world.

If you do not know much about Pakistan, the following story may of help ---

A Christian girl with mental retardation was accused of blasphemy to Islam, by her next door neighbor, coincidently, happened to be an Islamic Imam.

According to that Islamic Imam, that Christian girl had burned pages from the so-called "Holy Quran" - and because of that, the girl was jailed on the charge of "Blasphemy" - and if convicted, can be put to death.

Immediately the whole nation of Pakistan was up in arm. Muslims threatening to kill the minority Christians, Christian churches were attacked and burned, and entire Christian community had to be vacated due to the threats.

After much twists and turns, it was reported that the "burned pages of Quran" was the making of that so-called "Islamic Imam".

That "Islamic Imam" was the one who framed that Christian girl, by putting burnt pages of Quran into the girl's bag.

And because Pakistan is a nation filled with hatreds, the minority Christians are still being threatened, and that Christian girl is still under the official charge of "Blasphemy", although a court granted her a bail.

That Christian girl still face immense danger. She could still be killed by the angry Islamic mob, or the Pakistan authority itself.

What I took away from the story was that the authorities in Pakistan are actually deserving of a little faith. This so-called Imam, representing the powerful majority faith, set this poor girl up and in the sort of country the pakistan-bashers paint, it would have worked. It didnt. That Imam, last I heard, is the focus of police investigation, and is likely to be arrested, tried, and convicted of the crime of blasphemy for which he attempted to frame the girl.

If that's how it works out, then it's hard for me to see how the Pakistani authorities could possibly have handled it better.

"Respect" and "Tolerance" are basically orthogonal. Tolerating somebody does require that you respect their right to do whatever it is they are doing; but has no necessary connection with respecting whatever it is they are doing. Respect, by contrast, implies some degree of actual regard for somebody, rather than mere sufferance of them.

In fact, 'tolerate' actually sounds pretty weird if used outside a context where the stimulus is implicitly negative in some respect. You wouldn't ask "How can you tolerate getting a raise and a corner office?" You would as "How can you tolerate that squeaky noise that the vent in your office makes?"

intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself

"i oppose you because of your skin color" is not the same as "i oppose you because you oppose people simply because of their skin color"

but in that difference, is the confusion: some social conservatives view the left as the most intolerant. because the left won't respect their homophobia, for example. "how can you say you stand for tolerance when you don't respect my right to deny someone else's right to marry?"

did you see that trick? did you see how it gets turned around?

it's the same as "if some troll somewhere makes a bad youtube video about muhammad, the honor of islam must be restored with blood from someone else from your tribe, the west"

it all comes down to: how do you deal with people who demand respect for a worldview which is essentially disrespectful

"I oppose you because of your skin color" is a statement that is to be rejected as unethical and foolish. Just because someone subscribes to at least one unethical and foolish position does not justify categorizing them and hating them. The position can be attacked without attacking the person.

I "tolerate intolerance" in as much as I respect the right of people to hold the position, I don't tolerate it in as much as I will point out the incorrectness of the position, actively fight against acting on the position, and make an honest attempt to convince the holder of their error. In spite of following this course precisely, I've been accused of not tolerating intolerance by people who just don't know what tolerance means.

I disagree, some positions are indefensible and holding them shows a great deal about the person's attitude in general. Racism exposes much more about a person than merely the fact that they hate a certain race.

What ever makes you think they've been exposed to right and good positions through facts and logical argument? Seriously? I posit the following: every human being on the planet believes at least one absurd thing they have never been reasonably challenged on.

Corroboration: this story [thisamericanlife.org] from This American Life. The first act has a few funny anecdotes about absurd things people believed for longer than would seem plausible.

Kristy Kruger: It was about a group of five to seven people, kind of standing around the keg, just talking. And somehow a discussion of endangered species came up, in which I posed the question, is the unicorn endangered or extinct? And basically, there was a big gap of silence [...]and then everybody laughed. And then that laughter was followed by more silence when they realized I wasn't laughing. And I was like, yeah, oh God, unicorns aren't real? Oh no.

You can actually generalize that a bit: 'tolerance' is really only a coherent concept with regard to certain classes of stimuli.

It is, at best, weird to speak of 'tolerance' of things you like. Nobody really talks about 'tolerating' things that they like. They don't not-tolerate them; but they don't tolerate them in any meaningful way.

It is downright incorrect to speak of 'tolerance' of things that are deemed to be beyond the pale. You don't 'tolerate' murderers or critical security flaws; not because you are 'intolerant'; but because such things are not accorded toleration.

It's only the intermediate class of things, things that are distasteful, unpleasant, etc; but are accorded some sort of right(or some sort of inevitability, in context, as with the squeaky vent that Facilities is never going to fix), that you can meaningfully 'tolerate', and the degree to which you do so determines how 'tolerant' or 'intolerant' you are(the medical usage semi-overlaps here, in that the less responsive to a given drug you are, the greater your tolerance to it is said to be, just as the less responsive to a given negative stimulus you are, the greater your tolerance is said to be).

The tricky thing is that, in practice, 'tolerance' is forced to carry two(quite distinct) meanings: The one is strictly a measure of how you endure the third class of negative-but-not-eradicable stimuli. The second is your system of classification for these three categories. That's a wholly different thing; but it has to coexist in the same word.

In the example you give(assuming the participants are actually sincere, that line frequently isn't), you really have an argument over whether or not homophobia is a class II or class III phenomenon: If it is class III, then failure to tolerate it is intolerance. If it is class II, failure to tolerate it is simple moral clarity. (There may also be a secondary argument over what exactly 'tolerance' means: There are definitely social circles that you will be frozen out of for socially retrograde attitudes; but the Leftist firebombing campaign against southern baptist churches just hasn't panned out... Exactly how polite you are required to be to count as 'tolerant' is a somewhat unsettled question).

Inconveniently, the case of the Blasphemy Police vs. freedom of expression is probably fairly similar. Nobody seems to be saying "Yup, I think that everyone deserves freedom of expression; but I Just Can't Stand It when I see a picture of Mohammed as a drag queen and I flip out, I'm intolerant, I guess." They are, rather, saying that blasphemy, at least against their favorites, is outside the set of phenomena to which tolerance applies. Inconveniently, while somebody's degree of 'tolerance' relative to a pre-supplied set assignment is measureable, and you can argue for or against given actions and policies based on how tolerant they are, the set assignment itself is basically in the same boat as the rest of moral philosophy: little more than handwaving and appeals to 'intuition' or emotion, or imaginary friends.

Inconveniently, while somebody's degree of 'tolerance' relative to a pre-supplied set assignment is measureable, and you can argue for or against given actions and policies based on how tolerant they are, the set assignment itself is basically in the same boat as the rest of moral philosophy: little more than handwaving and appeals to 'intuition' or emotion, or imaginary friends.

No, you can easily come up with empirical measures to determine whether something should be tolerated. Does it materially harm anyone other than the person doing it? If not, it must be tolerated. I don't see anyone claiming that blasphemy causes anyone any specific harm, so it must be tolerated.

You also don't give philosophy enough credit. Remember, logic is a branch of philososphy. And we can make irrefutable logical arguments about what should be tolerated. Assume for the sake of argument that causing someone offense should not be tolerated. You would then advocate for laws against offense. However, I find such laws themselves offensive, as offensive as any religious person finds blasphemy. Therefore the laws themselves would be illegal. QED, a simple logical proof by contradiction that offense should be tolerated.

The reason violent intolerance is so rare on the left is that they control the levers of power by controlling most of the media (both news and entertainment). When the left finds something that makes them extremely angry, they talk about it on their news shows and TV shows. They are able to laugh about it on late night talk shows and SNL. They control the debate to the point that even Republicans (who are, after all, politicians) feel they must give in.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are silenced. We don't see our views respected and heard. Instead we see "two-sided" debates in which the person supposedly representing our voice is apologizing for us and accusing us of being extremists. Or we read newspaper articles in which our side is misrepresented or ignored entirely.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have become so popular. Sometimes you want to hear your views stated out loud in a forum where you know others can hear them so you feel like you have a voice in the debate. Even though Rush says so much I disagree with, and makes so little logical sense, I will always have gratitude for him because he was the first media personality I ever heard throwing arguments back at liberals. He wasn't logical, and he wasn't fair, but then neither was all the liberal trash I heard and saw on nightly news and TV shows. When your team is losing because the refs keep favoring the other side, you can't help but feel grateful when a ref enters the field who makes unfair calls in your favor. Sure you would rather have all the refs be fair, but since that isn't happening, you're at least glad to have one of the refs on your side.

Even though Rush says so much I disagree with, and makes so little logical sense, I will always have gratitude for him because he was the first media personality I ever heard throwing arguments back at liberals. He wasn't logical, and he wasn't fair, but then neither was all the liberal trash I heard and saw on nightly news and TV shows. When your team is losing because the refs keep favoring the other side, you can't help but feel grateful when a ref enters the field who makes unfair calls in your favor. Sure you would rather have all the refs be fair, but since that isn't happening, you're at least glad to have one of the refs on your side.

Thank you for making the rest of your argument clear and not some kind of political rant back, you merely stated your position & feelings rather than attacking. Nice to see sanity prevail in politics of any kind, left or right.

Secondly... Unfortunately the kind of "at least this ref is cheating for my team" leads to the breakdown of the game theory assumptions behind democracy. If your only happy with someone cheating for you and they are only happy when someone is cheating for them, the system breaks down through a kind of yo-yo effect between the sides involved which will typically reduce to just 2. I'm not making any kind of political statement left right up down... vote for the start button for all i care lol. I'm a 'swinging voter' but the thing is, I vote carefully considering each time. I want the fairest ref I trust not to screw me over somehow, problem is 'everyone' (not literally but in the sense that most people are voting towards their self interests) else wants the ref that cheats for their team.

Thirdly, the second thing isnt a personal attack, i realize that your looking after your interests when you vote for the guy that cheats for you, simply because if you didnt then the other side would completely railroad you which sucks even worse for you and the 50% of the people on your side. My problem is more that it has become a matter of 'sides' in the first place. It should be 1 side... the people running the country in the best interests of its people.

Democracy these days feels like its turned into a game of football (the type of football is not relevant in this statement)

I'm intolerant of _actions_, because these impinge on other people, and hence need to be justified.

Ideas: no. The world is full of bad ideas, many of which I've had myself. We need to examine and criticize ideas, examine their consequences, etc. No ideas (such as religions) get a free ride. Having held many bad ideas in the past, I don't hold that against people. We're all seeking after truth and a better life.

As for "general intolerance of all things Southern", the key point you're looking for is prejudice: treat people as individuals, look for their humanity, rather than one of a class. Once you're willing to dismiss people for being racists/black/jew, that way lies the ovens.

I guess you didn't realize this amazingly advanced logic but as a christian, compared to muslims, one of us is correct and one is not. There is no "tolerance" when both religions demand that there be no other fake religions. The only person who can truly promote "tolerance" is one who thinks we're both wrong and that's atheists, which is around 18% of the US and the US is not rules by an 18% majority system. So we disagree, deal with it.

Zeus tells me that BOTH religions are fake. And the Pink Unicorn tells me that making Religion into Law is blasphemous and shall be punished in eternal fire.

If the UN charter mentions 'protection from religious intolerance', why are the extreme demands of some religions (or lack thereof) being heeded at all? These demands sound like the very definition of religious intolerance.

People still don't know how to handle an illness where the patient doesn't want what would be good for him, from his sane version's standpoint.Do you force them to do what you think they would want... which will always be what *you* think is good... and thereby impose yourself on them and take away his individuality and freedom? (Sadly, most people do not even accept the fact that what they deem globally right/wrong, is only their own bias.)Or do you let them run around, even though you fully know they hurt themselves and others, and inside is a faint rest of themselves, screaming to be saved? (Sadly, most people don't seem to have the empathy and/or intelligence to feel bad for them.)It's complicated.

Even when it's blatantly obvious, that they are harmful and dangerous to us, and the delusions serve no purpose other than to flee from an unbearable/unprocessable reality.

We still think that one has to accept and tolerate the ignorance and delusions of others.In the 21st century, with psychology finally getting a solid foundation in the form of neurology, we still don't treat it like the full mental illness that it is.Let alone being landed in the heads of politicians...

(Posting anonymously, because those ill with religious schizophrenia will hate-mod me down anyway. They just can't help it. And I can understand them. It's like a life-threatening thing to them. [And neurologically, it actually really is. At least for the brain.])

If the UN charter mentions 'protection from religious intolerance', why are the extreme demands of some religions (or lack thereof) being heeded at all? These demands sound like the very definition of religious intolerance.

Yeah, and what happens when someone stars the religion of Malsi, where the main doctrine is the denunciation of Muhammad, and venerating him is blasphemy? Will the UN sanction anyone practicing Islam?

You can't ever have the right to not be offended, because there's someone somewhere that will be offended by you taking offense, so one of you will always be offended.

No, no, no. Stop this stupid equivocating crap. Demand for blasphemy laws is no more blasphemy to a free speech activist than rejecting intolerance is intolerance from a free love hippy. It is not even funny. It's just wrong.

Here's why: the concept of free speech is based on human rights, not God's demands. That means that it cannot actually be blasphemy, which is specifically defined as speech harmful to God's image. Furthermore, free speech is based on the understanding that people will be enforcing laws, which means that people will be interpreting laws, which means that something as nebulous as "thou shall not insult me" is guaranteed to be abused in the most terrible fashion, and therefore has no place in a book of law. To put it another way: the requirement inherent in free speech that I tolerate your foul mouth has nothing to do with requiring to tolerate your actions, or your calls to action. If you're going to advocate restrictions on free speech, free speech activists will come down on your ass.

I know you were going for funny, but there are too many idiots out there who see this and go "Hypocrites! All of you! Now let me play my Call of Duty 27".

Please, will the sensible and non-crazy muslims please stand up already and disown these lunatics?

This is not religious intolerance, but rather intolerance against extremely disproportionate acts. According to the muslims who riot, it is absolutely appropriate for people to stand up and violently destroy property, and take people lives. Surely this is not what Islam and the Koran truly stands for?

the underlying theme in koran writings IS that the dhimmis (ie, all of us non-moslems) are to be conquered or killed. eventually. until then, they are allowed to lie to us and do whatever it takes in order to secure their future.

LOOK IT UP.

I wish I was kidding. this is nasty, ugly shit, but its the basic overall guiding concept. it really is;(

the underlying theme in koran writings IS that the dhimmis (ie, all of us non-moslems) are to be conquered or killed. eventually. until then, they are allowed to lie to us and do whatever it takes in order to secure their future.

LOOK IT UP.

Are you sure you are not interpreting the Koran -- assuming you've read it -- through the Christian Protestant, and in particular, fundamentalist, lens of sola scriptura, that is, that the holy book contains all necessary knowledge of the faith? Are you sure that this is also the Islamic standard of exegesis as well?

Christianity has evolved and we should expect the same from other religions.

Christianity did not evolve(eg: listen to the current pope's message for example), we simply mocked the shit out of it [youtube.com]. Christianity learn it's place and is no longer a threat to the civilized world. The void its demise left in our societies was left empty on purpose. It is not a opportunity for Islam to take over and we must make that very clear by mocking the shit out of their religion too.

It seems to me that Islam does condone (hell no, recommend) the use of violence to spread Islam.

It depends. It certainly believes that a worldwide Islamic government would be the bestest thing ever, and approves the use of force to get there, but that doesn't directly translate into forcing people to convert. Islamic countries have a long history of keeping several non-Islamic religious groups within its borders, all of them relatively untouched, unharmed, and even with self-governing rights (as long as they recognized their Islamic overlords as being the legitimate rulers, didn't dare trying to convert any Muslim to their faith, REALLY didn't dare offend Islam, and paid their special "2nd-class non-citizen" tax). So, in a way Islam had the first set of rules at something resembling "religious freedom" (as in "freedom to practice") mindset in the pre-Enlightenment world, so much so that it was quite common for European religious minorities to migrate to Islamic countries when things got really bad in Europe, kind of like when nowadays a North Korean dissident runs to China to escape oppression: from his perspective, a huge improvement; from ours, not so much. Evidently, at some point things in Europe started to improve at a faster rate than in the Middle East Islam, then surpassed them, and now we're the ones who look at them as the oppressive bad guys.

So, not so much the use of violence to spread Islam, but the use of violence to spread Sharia law, which, although a closely related subject, isn't quite the same thing.

I went to university with a guy from Iran who literally escaped death by fleeing overland to Afghanistan, thence Pakistan and finally Canada. He had to redo his entire engineering degree because the Iranian officials who wanted him dead would not release proof that he had graduated from university in Iran.

Then you don't know anything about Islam other than what you think you've learned from news sites and CNN.

Go read the Qu'ran. There are plenty of instances [quran.com] in which religiously-motivated violence is condoned or even instructed [quran.com]. Of course, the apologists will immediately cite other examples from the Qu'ran that contradict that. The nice thing about Islam is that its followers can pick and choose: Show the peaceful bits to the ignorant dhimmi and the violent bits to the true followers. You'll never get a straight answer.

This is not unique to Islam, of course. Most religions have similar contradictions that allow believers to pick-and-choose according to the situation and the audience. The problem is that currently, Islam's violent underpinnings are causing far more problems for the world than the violent underpinnings of other religions.

Actually. the problem with Islam is the followers cannot pick and choose.

2:106:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

What that passage, and other similar passages in the Quran. have been interpreted to mean is that if two verses contradict each other, the latter verse abrogates (cancels) the previous. As the verse implies. Allah can do all things, including change his mind (or as believers would argue, change his commands to better suit changing times). Now the Quran is not arranged chronologically but i'll give you a hint what the last written chapter is. Sura 9 [quran.com]. This means that all that peaceful stuff earlier in the Quran, written when Muslims were a minority in Mecca and it was convenient to preach tolerance towards religion were all cancelled by verses like 9:5. There shall be no compulsion in religion? Gone. Thankfully not all Muslims know about abrogation and of those who do, only a minority take seriously.

Islam also says that, if you bring someone into your house, you have to protect them from harm. One of it's central tenets(one of the Pillars) is charity. During the Middle ages, the Middle East under Islam was one of the safest places in the world to live in if you were Jewish, much more so than in Europe.

So, because Christians in Europe used to be violent to other religions you are saying its OK for the Muslims to do it now.

During the Crusades Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to practice their religions freely, paying only a small tax, while Christian crusaders generally enforced a convert or die approach.

Tell the whole truth. This payment was seen as acceptance of subjugation, and If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was punishable by enslavement [wikipedia.org] if they were ever captured. Also at times it was a heavy rather than light imposition. In addition to this Non Muslims were not allowed to practice their faith in the open, display religious symbols, or build or repair places of worship [wikipedia.org]. They would also not be allowed to testify against Muslims, which is why today so many non-Muslim women raped by muslims have it thrown out as "no case to answer".

And for the record, the Old Testament of the Bible also condones and recommends killing to spread the religion, or even just to take land that you want, and it's ok as long as they don't believe.

And I would be as opposed to Christians or Jews doing this as I am to Muslims doing it. The fact is that they don't any more, whereas Muslims do,

Really, the Middle East wasn't too bad in the early part of the 20th century, either. They were joining the modern world at a decent pace, women's rights were strong, they had universities with open-minded debates, female students, and even female politicians and leaders. They had open discourse on politics and religion, and generally everyone in the region was reasonably tolerant of others' religions.

It's the *modern* Middle East that's the problem. The *modern* Islamist rule in the region turned everything upside down with a new interpretation of "fundamentalist" Islam and started enforcing it on their societies. There are still living (old) people in the Middle East who remember how it was before all of this, and they're ashamed of what their countries have become. Religion evolves, and it's fair to say that the plurality of the modern practitioners of Islam in the Middle East represent a very different religion than the more peaceful and progressive variant that preceded it.

There may be an interpretation of Islam that's peaceful, but there are clearly also interpretations that are not. As with Christianity, the important thing in the moment is: which side is winning Islam's internal debate and controlling the majority of its political actions on the world stage?

Although you are right in the point that both books write about violence and other more horrible acts, there IS a difference, and it is this:

First of all the bible is written in two distinct parts; the old testament and the new one. It is quite possibly the old testament that contains most violent and horrible acts. The old testament describes a god that is vengeful and grim. The smallest mischief and its all fire and brimstone on your puny little ass. Nevertheless, it is god himself who does that, and on those occasions when humans thought they could (or should) be violent, god intervened. This starts with Abel and Cain, where the latter killed the former, and he is punished by god. Even with Sodom & Gomorrah it is God who does all the killing NOT humans.Then there is the new testament. In part two of this novel a young protagonist has been send to right some wrongs. First he points out that he intimately knows the main character of part one personally and that he isn't half as bad-assed as described in part one. He goes on telling that God actually wants people to love each other. Casting of the first stone, turn the other cheek, love your neighbour as yourself, be nice to prostitutes and even the guy's from the IRS etcetera etcetera... the list goes on... Then he is treated very unfriendly and goes home.

Then there is the Koran, This could be viewed as part 3 of the trilogy, OR as a re-write of part 1 & 2 with an alternative ending. Now to come to a good understanding of this book one should read it at least two times, because the chapters are not chronological but sorted in length. This was more convenient to... well who knows? Anyway, it is important to read it twice, first to have an overview, second time to understand the context of each chapter.Here God is portrayed as a bad-assed mofo again, but this time he is more like a got-father who tell's people (Muslims) to be violent against non-people (non-muslims). He goes so far as to call non-muslims monkeys and pigs, man he is ill-tempered! That violence is almost always in the form of killing, wich is commanded to the believer, can be found here (Sura 2:191), here (Sura 5:33), here (Sura 8:12), here (Sura 8:60*), here (Sura 8:65), here (Sura 9:5), here (9:29*), here (Sura 9: 123*) and finally here (47:4). Marked * are disputable, it all depends a bit which translation is being used one can be found here: http://www.universalunity.net/English_Translation_By_R_Khalifa.htm

In short, the difference is that in Christianity being violent is God's job (and no one else's), in the Quran being violent is the job of the believer. There are scores of Christians who want to help God a little (wrongfully if they had read their book) and scores of Muslims who do not kill anyone (wrongfully if they had read their book).

People like you amuse me. When someone criticizes a non-Christian religion you respond with "Well, the Bible is bad too..."

Why do you feel that everyone that criticizes a non-Judeo-Chrisitian religion must be a Judeo-Christian? Couldn't it be possible, for example, that a person who rejects Islam because of it's seemingly violent nature rejects Judeo-Christianity for the same reason?

Thing is, such Muslims stand up and denounce such things all the time, but when the media give them attention the sites are bashed for being 'liberal media' since such denouements do not fit with a certain narrative... so there is a rather strong selection bias going on.

there are a lot of moderate muslims. there is also a heck of a lot of extremist muslims. it's hard for the moderates to exercise restraint and power when they aren't actually fully in power

it's also hard to say "calm down" when the other guy feels fully justified in putting a bullet in your head because you are not adequately devout, of the wrong sect, too western sounding/ looking, etc.

if you want to talk media spin, here it is: when a muslim extremist kills a westerner, the western media goes apeshit. when a muslim extremist kills a moderate muslim, you don't hear about it. but eh latter happens 10-100x more than the former. because the simple truth, by orders of magnitude, is that the greatest victim of muslim extremist terrorism, is other muslims. moderate muslims. they are literally being killed off if not cowed by fear

I've spoken out in favor of free-speech and reform... but you know what. I'm tired of people like you thinking us other Muslims can somehow fix the 'crazy' Muslims.

There is a reasonable reading of the Islamic text that does mean, you need to spread the Islamic state and when in a position of power to enforce blasphemy laws. This is simply a rather orthodox Islamic position.

So, I can't 'convince' the 'extreme' Muslims to go against a pretty reasonable reading of the texts. The same text that says pray 5 times a day and tells Muslims how to pray is the same one that tell Muslim women to put on the veil and spread the Islamic state.

FYI... Islam is not just the Koran. You need the Hadith as well. Hint... the Koran never even says pray 5 times a day. The Koran says follow Mohamed... so what Mohamed did is recorded in the Hadith. Most of what Muslims actually practice is in the Hadith.

Now that I've given you some background.Let me tell you who you should turn your demands towards. Your ridiculous governments who have such a perverse view of rights.

Religious rights are extreme. As long as someone can say something is part of their religion... somehow that means they should be able to do it.

Let me tell you how I see it. I live in Canada. Not exactly land of liberty, but a pretty free country.

This is a country where the government takes control of healthcare, can actually deny me treatment, can control a restaurants use of transfat oil, can send me to jail for smoking a plant, takes half my income to fund, can send in child-care workers if I spank my child, monopolizes the school system...

My point of all this is not to complain about my rights being infringed or anything. Just to show how much government interferes with my 'rights' already.

Yet this same government finds it a violation of 'rights' to tell Muslim women they can't wear the niqab. Yeah, which does more social harm. Me wanting to eat fish and chip cooked with transfat oil... or a Muslim women possibly being forced to wear the niqab due to social customs and isolating her and preventing social cohesion.

And do you know who sits on all these government bureaucracies. It's not us Muslims. It's your fellow 'white' Canadians or American. Who sits on Human rights tribunals or drafts legislation?

We have real social issues in the Muslim community. And you 'white Canadians/Americans' actually work to support the 'extremists'. You don't stand up for your Western values... then you suddenly demand us 'moderate' Muslims do everything for you.

Classic Blasphemy example with this video. It pits freedom of speech against a theocracy. And what does the leader of the free world say? What does Barack Obama say? Does he come out in strong support of Free Speech and Western Values? What does Hilary Clinton say? They spend their effort talking about how offensive the film is.

Heck, even George Bush... the so called... 'cowboy' barely stood up for Western values.

Heck, I wonder if Nazism was a religion today, if you Western people wouldn't just sit there trying to be tolerant of it in the name of freedom of religion.

The only people standing up for Western values are the 'crazy' white people... as you would probably call them. In the UK... it's the EDL. In the US, prolly people you'd refer to as rednecks. In Canada... its our 'rednecks'.

So pardon me for not going out of my way anymore.I was born Muslim. I care about my people and my community, but I've stopped caring. I don't care anymore if you think Islam is a horrible religion. I don't care to defend it. I'm just tired.

If you Western people won't even stand up for your values and way of life... why should I?

"They already have. Most don't like the video, but also don't like the rioting. Problem is, how can they stop it? And how are they supposed to make a statement disowning them? "

Trouble is, there seem there don't seem to be enough of the non-crazy Muslims in some countries. When you have a government minister in Pakistan offering a $100000 bounty for the murder of a foreign civilian, and he's not instantly dismissed, you have a serious problem. He can do that because a large majority of the population back those views, and he knows it. In Pakistan, not so long ago considered an ally of the west, the crazy extremist types are very much in the ascendant, and a lot of Muslim countries seem to be heading that way. It's not just a small minority of crazies making a lot of noise, it's a large majority of them.

Functionally he was a soldier, but per the 3rd Geneva Convention article 4 he wasn't as he didn't fulfill all the requirements to meet the definition.

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);that of carrying arms openly;that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

All these comments and requests for "blasphemy" etc, somehow remind me of "Fahrenheit 451" - I'm afraid, because of all these demands, we're really on the wrong track and move towards the world described in Fahrenheit 451...

The reason he is calling for blaspheme laws is because free expression is coming to Pakistan and is freaking subgroups out. This is quite the opposite of censorship, this is what its collapse looks like.

How about we finally rank freedom of expression firmly above freedom of religion? Freedom of expression already safeguards religious freedom in all the important ways (along with freedom of assembly). But freedom of religion should not include the right to be free from being insulted or offended. We all are offended by something from time to time, but us non-religious types just have to suck it up. And rightly so. In such cases, freedom of expression should trump religious sensitivities

We should remove freedom of religion. Anything acceptable* a religious person or group do is already covered by freedom of expression and assembly. Religion don't need a special case any more then Trekkies; both groups are obsesses with work of fiction.

* the extra right of mutilating babies under freedom of religion is not acceptable.

The UN should (if it could) pass an international "don't foist your religion on me" law, forbidding proselytizing, causing injury to others for religious reasons, or religious discrimination of any sort. Passing an anti-blasphemy law is just so wrong, and stifling to just about all free speech!

As soon as you respect all laws and aspects of other religions, pass and aggressively enforce laws to stop the repression of women in your OWN country, Stop repressing freedom and start hunting down and putting in prison all radical sects of Islam that preach that it's holy to murder people in the name of Allah. Oh and stop the oppression of education, embrace that knowledge is freedom.

as soon as you guys do all of that and get your house clean and in order, we will have a special meeting to do exactly what you ask.

Please be careful signing up to do something antithetical to your core morality, just if somebody else will do something you are sure they will never do. They could call you on it. Nobody should ever sign up for anti-blasphemy legislation under ANY hypothetical condition.

Just tell them you will CONSIDER their demand when they clean up their own act. I would say one second of fair and honorable consideration, followed by a REJECTED sticker, would then fulfill the bargain and leave one's own core morality uncompromised.

This is what happens when you try to give equal weight to two goals that conflict with one another so often: in this case, freedom of expression versus what advocates of curtailing free expression in this way call "human dignity." Sooner or later, one must prioritize. We need to stop pretending that we can have our metaphorical cake and eat it too.

For the record, when faced with such conflicts, I find the right choice to be the one that maximizes human agency: the ability for people to, through their choices and actions, make a difference in their own lives. Applied here, that means prioritizing the act of expression over passive reaction: in other words, free expression wins.

Note that their interpretation of "Blasphemy" is "Critical of Islam". From TFA:

We would go to the UN and OIC and get a law passed to stop anti-Islam activities, including blasphemy, for-ever,

So burning bibles [worthynews.com] will be fine, as will be the destroying artefacts of other faiths [wikipedia.org]. Of course it will not interfere with their right to kill anyone who converts from Islam (apostasy has the death penalty in Pakistan and many other Muslim countries [wikipedia.org], or allow non-Muslims to worship in the open. I suggest that the UN ought to think about preventing the death penalty for changing religion rather than make it illegal to say "Muhammad was violent".

Christianity is blasphemy to a Muslim. Islam is blasphemy to a Jew. Mormonism is blasphemy to a Christian. And us atheists, well no religion thinks that ain't blasphemy. So, would this mean that everybody just shuts up about their particular brand of religion or does the world have to pick just one? Because, otherwise it is a joke of an idea.

Blasphemy isn't 'religious intolerance'; but banning blasphemy is fairly obviously contrary to 'freedom of expression and opinion'. There, that was easy.

Incidentally, since most religions contain significant incompatibilities(on occasion, you get organizational splits purely because of personality spats or disputes over who gets the earthly loot; but all the really good schisms are over doctrine), the practice of almost any religion is necessarily blasphemous(at least by implication, often quite overtly) toward almost all the others.

In practice, of course, anti-blasphemy laws are usually just an excuse to suppress the minorities and the dissidents; but it would be (morbidly) amusing to watch the epic pileup that would occur if one were actually applied rigorously... There would also be some fun around statements that are simultaneously likely to arouse ire and are confirmed by assorted holy texts, the denial of which would also cause ire(Anything concerning the fact that the god of the old testament is kind of a genocidal psycho, or that Mohammed fucked a nine year old, would qualify, as would, no doubt, an endless number of subtler doctrinal quibbles between more enthusiastic sects).

This 'religious tolerance' thing is exactly what these rioting mobs are not demonstrating. Religious tolerance does not mean that you don't have to hear anything you don't like about your religion. It means that you do not suffer political or economic repression for your religious beliefs. That's it.

So I'm sorry (well, no, I'm not really) but no. This absolutely will not fly. I don't care what kind of weaponry people who think rioting over an insult to their religion acquire. They must never be allowed control under any circumstances. This kind of behavior is flat out unacceptable and intolerable. I will never in any way support it and nobody else should either.

Fix your own worldview, because you will not get to impose it on everybody else. I will never agree to it.

Mohammed was a warmongering, misogynistic, bigoted pedophile, and Allah is a lie. Islam is a religion bent on destruction, murder, and world conquest. Fuck Islam.

Muslims, read the above. Know it's not a religion of peace because Mohammed taught the principle of abrogation, where the newer writings overrule the older writings where they conflict, and while in the beginning he was peaceful and had good relations with the Jews he grew up with, he later became warlike, hateful, bigoted, and a massive megalomaniac on the scale of Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every other evil historical figure you can think of, and his writings changed to match his philosophy, hence the jihad changed from one's internal struggle of conquering human nature's evil characteristics to world conquest, He wrote of converting people by the sword if they won't accept his stupid book, and he also preached that Muslims should kill the Saturday people (Jews) and the Sunday people (Christians) since they were friends to the Jews.

Again: Mohammed was flat-out wrong. Allah is a myth. Islam is a religion of hate.

1. someone insults islam. could be erudite high culture, like salman rushdie, could be a useless troll, like the "innocence of the muslims" hatemonger. doesn't matter

2. the muslim world goes apeshit. moderate muslims say the muslims going apeshit do more damage to islam than the insult to islam. they're right. doesn't matter

3. someone from the west, or in the west, gets killed. this matters

see, it doesn't matter if you believe that you should be able to say anything you want and it doesn't give anyone else the right to kill you. because there's a large group of extremists who believe that if you insult their religion, this gives them the right, no, the duty, to kill someone, ANYONE from the west. because if some low iq asocial reject who hasn't washed in a week draws a lame cartoon or writes a bad play about muhammad in his mom's basement, this represents the entire west. the reject's basement could be in hamburg. could be in sydney. could be in vancouver. doesn't matter: the entire western "tribe" attacked the honor of the entire muslim "tribe". that's the way it works in their head. now it is ok to kill someone from that tribe, anywhere, anytime. to restore honor. that's the "logic"

yes, this is some ignorant medieval shit, i agree. but that doesn't matter. what matters is that there is a large group of medieval ignorants who can not be reasoned with who will firmly and dependably adhere to this dynamic

this will go on and on for decades. what i fear is that it accelerates and destabilizes a country into the hands of a muslim version of hitler

i try to be an optimistic person in life. that you can solve problems nonviolently. but this is a small planet, getting smaller, because of jet air travel and the internet. and not that we shouldn't aim for peace, but that peace is not possible, due to the determination of a fringe, but a fringe of enough financial backings, sympathies across large enough of a population, and over a dynamic of many decades, whereby large scale bloodshed comes, despite the best efforts of everyone sane otherwise

muslim moderates, in the muslim world and the west: you can not hide from these fools. you have to fight for your lands. this will make you targets, and a lot of you will be targeted and killed for not being properly devout. but the alternative is these dipshits come to power, and then it is large scale conflict with the west, and it will make wwii look like a tea party. please: take your lands away from these assholes. it will be very difficult. you understand the alternative is worse

Freedom Of Religion, for me, means I can worship Allah, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., without you interfering in my worship.

Freedom Of Religion, for you, means you can worship Allah, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc., without me interfering in your worship.

Freedom Of Speech, for me, means I can say (almost*) anything, including insulting your religion.

Freedom Of Speech, for you, means you can say (almost*) anything, including insulting my religion.

* Exceptions for things like yelling "fire" in a theater that isn't on fire.

When I insult your religion, I am using my freedom of speech, but I am not preventing you from practicing your religion. That is why the guy who made that anti-muslim video can make a video like that. He is exercising his freedom of speech. This does not prevent any follower of Islam from practicing their religion. Your freedom of religion affects your actions, not mine. I can stand out front of a mosque with a sign saying 'Islam is wrong,' because I am exercising my freedom of speech but I am not preventing you from entering the mosque and exercising your freedom of religion. If, on the other hand, I block the entrance to the mosque, then I would be preventing you from exercising your freedom of religion, and I would be in the wrong.

Allah/Jehovah/etc. is not so weak that the words of a person can harm them. I think that, whatever the nature of the deity, they are probably more upset with all of the hate and pain done in their name than with the words of a person as a direct attack on them. This is what these rioters are, in effect, saying when they riot: "My god and my faith in my god are so weak that he can't take care of himself, so I have to go around killing people."

On the other hand, if you believe that god wants you to run around rioting, killing, etc., and it's okay to do these things, then you don't get to also expect not to have your ass kicked by a superior military power. If violence is the way, then you're going to get your ass kicked and you shouldn't complain about it. If peace is the way, then you shouldn't be running around killing people. I'm not talking about whether any particular conflict is justified or not; just the internal logic of the rioters.

All rambling aside, if there's one message I would like the muslim world to get, it would be this:

Allah is great. He doesn't need you to run around killing people for him. He put jerks in the world to test you. Get over it, pass His test, and get on with your lives.

Those were huge statues of Buddha. Some 200 or 300 feet tall. Carved into niches of rock face of a hill. Something like Petra. They were in Afghanistan. They were 1500 years old. And the Taliban decided to dynamite them.

Government of Sri Lanka begged the Taliban government to let them carve and carry off the whole statue if they did not want it in their Islamic land. Japan offered to cover the whole statue behind a wall of concrete if they did not want to see it.

The Taliban refused all such overtures, and dynamited those historical figures. Where were all these Muslims who demand the world respect their prophet? Would this new blasphemy law prevent Saudi Government from disfiguring images of Hindu/Buddist/Sikh/Jain Gods or holymen found in books and magazines carried by workers traveling into Saudi Arabia?

The double standards from the fanatics is understandable. But the double standards from those claiming to be moderates is infuriating. I am with Bill Maher in this. All religions are not the same. No other religion demands the right impose its rules on people who do not belong to their religion. All the moderates talk in English to the west explaining why the fanatics are outraged. Yes, the fanatics will be always outraged. It is the job of the moderates to control the damned fanatics. If you can't, stop demanding to be treated like other religions.

Well, the Bamian Buddha is powerful. He got rid of Taliban within a year of His statute being demolished. Buddha will rid Afghanistan of Islam in due course.